About your Search

20130211
20130219
STATION
CSPAN2 12
CSPAN 9
MSNBCW 9
MSNBC 8
KQED (PBS) 5
FBC 4
WETA 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
KRCB (PBS) 3
CNN 2
CNNW 2
WMPT (PBS) 2
KCSM (PBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 79
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 81 (some duplicates have been removed)
chief architects of american foreign policy. the leadership lecture series was established by ambassador xu cobb to commemorate her husband, chuck birthday. please join me in recognizing sue and chuck for 25 years of providing the university of miami community with the opportunity to host insightful and a provocative leaders from all walks of life. [applause] >> i also want the students to thank them for generously donating 300 secretary rice's very big books which were given to the first 300 students who attended this year's event. [applause] >> the university takes no credit for doing this. i want to thank our very good friend of the books and books, the university met with him recently to discuss launching a new partnership to bring speakers to the campus and one week later he called to say we are going to have an opportunity to host the secretaries first public tour event. i think this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship. thank you very much. [applause] >> now they have sponsored other distinguished speakers, the founder ross perot, the commissioner david stern, david gergen
magazine" the latest from david ignatius of the "washington post," tom ricks of "foreign policy," and state department correspondent margaret brennan. we'll round it up on the with amy walt are aim amy walter, michael gerson, and our political director john dickerson. from out in space to here on earth, this is "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news in washington, "face the nation" with bob schieffer. >> schieffer: and good morning, again on a day when there is no shortage of questions. we welcome dennis mcdonough president obama's me chief of staff, who i presume has brought many answers with him this morning. nice to have you. >> thanks for having me, bob. i'm really looking forward to it. >> schieffer: the sequester these draconian across-the-board spending cuts that are supposed to go into effect march 1. it appears to me that this is anything to happen. it looks to as if both the president and the congressional leaders have given up on each other. can this possibly happen? >> well, we've not give know up on this, bob and the reason we've not given up on this is be
policy front, some of the best foreign policy reporters in the business. david ignatius is with the "washington post," of course. tom ricks used to work for the "poat" is now contributing editor to "foreign policy" magazine and margaret brennan is our cbs news state department correspondent. before we get to foreign subjects here on earth, i want to talk about matters from outer space, and that meteorite that fell over siberia and injured over 1,000 people. so we're going back to new york to talk with the science editor and senior editor of "time" magazine jeffrey chewinger. jeffrey, let me start with the obvious. this thing caught our attention. there's no question about that. should we be worried about this? do these things pose a danger to those of us here on earth? >> well, they do and they don't. there's some comfort to be takenarchs we report in "time" magazine this week, that the earth has been playing in traffic for about 4 billion years now especially the time calmed the heavy bombardment period when the solar system hadn't quite acreeded yet. even today, every
again during his time in office. >> presidents also touched on foreign policy, praising u.s. soldiers stationed in afghanistan and promising them a speedy return home. >> the president of the united states. [applause] >> it is a washington ritual, long applause, handshakes, and hugs on both sides of the aisle. in his speech, obama focused clearly on domestic issues, among them, raising the minimum wage, reforming immigration, and modernizing the education system. he also address america's political third rail -- gun control. the president promised survivors of gun control violence he would pursue common-sense reform. in a short foreign policy segment of his speech, obama said that efforts were on the course to conclude afghan operations next year. turning to europe, he raised the prospect of a free-trade zone to encourage commerce with european union countries and believe fears his new asian focus would come at europe's expense -- the late -- belay fears. >> trade that is fair and free across the atlantic supports millions of good-paying american jobs. >> but in a bitterly divided was
from the president last night. i didn't hear a new initiative in foreign policy. i didn't hear a new initiative on domestic policy. i heard 20-some odd programs that won't cost a dime, sounded like a candy rock mountain to me, which i learned does not exist. were you surprised? >> that was a new proposal at least, but i'm not surprised or disappointed. i think -- lou: i love a happy american. >> he's doubling down on a liberal agenda should not be a surprise to anybody, especially you, lou. lou: well, i maintain my unanimity, objectivity, and, always, my hope, of course. we're going to change the subject very quickly. we're going to come back to why is the president, why did he decide to make israel -- interesting, the first trip, first foreign trip of his second term? the a-team has some skeptical outlook, i would say, critical judgments they apply on these things, well, judy does on foreign policy,nyway, not necessarily the minimum wage. back with the a-team in moments. stay with us. lou: back with the a-team, and i do want to turn, first, to the response. senator rubio, as i point
information about what the white house did during the benghazi attack. he told "foreign policy magazine," quote, we need to know what the president's conversations were. i would vote no on thursday to disclosure unless the information is provide. by tuesday, or almost every day of the week, he said the president has responded to his satisfaction. but he didn't vote for closure. here's his latest. watch. >> there are still questions outstanding. i believe that senators have the right to have those questions answered. the senators and i had questions today. but there are other questions. >> like can you give us a copy of every speech you every gave krks you give us a dollar-for-dollar assessment for every dollar you made? by ta way, if you don't, we're going to accuse you. and joy, by the way, you're younger than i am by many, many years. we went back and looked at the innuendo. i don't know what he's running for. people say attorney general. i don't know why he's -- >> yeah, he's not running for president because i think he was born in canada. you said earlier in your introduce, chris, t
back to the election" rather than the point of view he has about foreign policy. >> we don't agree on very much in terms of foreign policy. when i think about the national security team that led to my comment that i thought the president was making second-rate choices, that goes to things like hagel for defense, susan rice to state, brennan for c.i.a.. >> brennan worked closely, was in the c.i.a. >> john was around when we were there. he didn't play a prominent role. that's really developed since he joined this administration. >> rose: but there are -- >> but there are people that could be appoint as director of c.i.a. folks like steve cap pass. i don't know if you know him? >> rose: i know him very well. >> talented guy, enormously respected. >> rose: retired from the c.i.a.. >> he has retired. they brought him back once before, we did. with people of that caliber available, i'm surprised you end up going with somebody like brennan. i just -- i come back to the proposition that it looks to me-- and speculative on my part, obviously, i'm not in the meetings-- that the president has
of this committee strongly opposed president obama's foreign-policy. regardless of how we may feel about the president's policies, or float on senator hagel nomination will not change those policies. there is a risk here it is that the defeat of this domination will leave the department of defense leaderless at a time when we face in this budgetary challenges in our military is engaged in combat operations overseas. such an absence of senior leaders would be unlikely to benefit either our national defense or men and away uniform, and i would add, given the recent explosion of a nuclear device by north korea, the delay in adopting this nomination and approving it, i think, will send the exact wrong message to north korea. the president needs to have a secretary of defense in him he has stressed who will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity and one who has a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to the use of military force. senator hagel certainly has those critically important qualifications, and he is well qualified to lead department of defense.
touched on various foreign- policy issues from afghanistan to iran and north korea. it was america's faltering economy that topped the agenda. now this report. >> the president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> every year the president gets one chance to use the pageantry and prestige of his office to lay out his agenda. as he begins his second term, president barack obama coloma to describe a progressive wish list, calling for a higher minimum wage, preschool reform, immigration reform, climate change, and investment in the economy to create jobs. >> it is our task to make sure this government works on behalf of the many and not just the few, that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation. [applause] >> in response to his economic message, republicans say higher taxes on the wealthy will not help. >> the tax increases and deficit spending will hurt middle-class families. it will cost them their raises. it will cost them their benefits and may cost them their jobs. >> on fore
in. obama unfortunately comes in with very little background on foreign policy never paid much attention, is served in washington only two years i was enthusiastic supporter but those of us that looked at him knew it could be a problem and when he appointed secretary of state and secretary of defense for domestic reasons and appointed retired marine general as a national security adviser and put leon panetta, know he is a neighbor in california but captured by the mentality of the cia this was an extremely weak national security team and obama also was ruled by the military that is how you got the search of forces and i think he realizes he was had and that is important why i am a little more optimistic with the second turn this is a wiser man and with the the fact he ended the war in iraq and meandering toward the war in afghanistan allowing the of pentagon, an institution of the fine motor skills of a dinosaur takes them a long time to put something together for withdrawal. all obama has to do is look at gorbachev. he came 1985, a secret speech 1986 denouncing afghanistan, he
house did during the benghazi attack. he told "foreign policy" magazine, quote, we need to know what the president's conversations were. i would vote no on cloture on thursday unless the information is provided. by tuesday -- actually by yesterday, which almost every day of the week he's changed his mind, the white house had responded to his satisfaction, but he still didn't vote for cloture. he still wouldn't vote to bring this matter of hagel's confirmation up to a vote, and here is his latest. let's watch. >> there are still questions outstanding. i believe that senators have the right to have those questions answered. the senator from south carolina and the senator from new hampshire and i had a response from the president today on the question that we had, but there are other questions. >> like can you give us a copy of every speech you ever gave? can you give us a dollar-for-dollar assessment of every dollar you ever made? by the way, if you don't tell us, we're going to accuse you of getting money from the north koreans. that's the way we will pay you. joy, you're younger than
support from senior statesman, defense and foreign policy organizations and the jittery 31 hearing he was endorsed enthusiastically by to former chairman of the committee the senators on the mission has been endorsed by five former secretary of defense who served under democratic and republican presidents, gates , a calling, perry, a brown and ugly year and endorsed by three former secretaries of state of six former national security advisers. receive letters of undress and from nine former ambassadors who worked on middle east issues and 11 and retired officers and 50 embassadors in national security officials. supported by the major groups of american veterans including iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, of vfw, a vietnam vets of america, and that an american legion and receive support from the military officers association of america, and the noncommissioned officers it is underscored by "war and peace" and i believe he enlisted in at army and received two purple hearts for the combat infantry badge. he served as deputy administrator during the reagan ministration and was tw
. they were two managements of foreign policy. one low level, and a different one strategic going out of the white house, and many thinks the white house had at the time objectives not really informed at the security council on the one hand or the state department. lou: let me ask you just straight up, yes or no. were you disappointed or disgusted at the conduct of the president of the united states and the secretary of state? >> i think that by trying to put this on the video, this was a diversion from what was happening on the ground, and they tried not to inform the american public before the elections. i think that's the con consensuf most of us, those of us who know what the jihadists were trying to do. lou: thank you for being with us. more on the rising tensionings in -- tensions in the middle east and president obama's response with the a-team next. the northeast hit by another big storm. in fact, a record storm. the blizzard update is next. bush whacked or hacked, however you want to say it, the bush family photos and secret e-mails of the former first family released on the
foreign policy magazine, quote, we need to know what the president's conversations were. i would vote no on cloture on thursday unless the information is provided. by tuesday, actually by yesterday, almost every day of the week he's changed his mind, the white house responded to his satisfaction but still didn't vote for cloture. still wouldn't bring this matter up to a vote. here's his latest. let's watch. >> there are still questions outstanding. i believe that senators have the right to have those questions answered. senator from south carolina and senator from new hampshire had a response from the president today on the question that we had. but there are other questions. >> like can you give us a copy of every speech you ever gave? give us a dollar for dollar assessment of every dollar you ever made. if you don't tell us we're going to accuse you of getting money from the north koreans. joy, you're younger than me, i think, by a lot of years and i have it to tell you, this does -- we're going to get to this. i'm going to sell this second segment coming up. we went back and looked
. john, what do you think? >> he will talk about foreign policy. forbes policy will not be the thrust of the speech. jobs, the economy will be. but when he talks about foreign policy, it's a pretty safe bet north korea will be on his mind. the president set to give that address at 9:00 eastern time. reports indicate that he may do a little bit more finger pointing this time than reaching across the aisle. congressman adam kinzinger, a republican from ill. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> we're getting previews about how the president may sound tonig, glen thrush of politico says don't expect anything like the call for peaceful collaboration that addressed the joint congress in 2009. >> month of the same. i think this is an opportunity. the president has an amazing opportunity to call republicans and democrats together to say both sides have to accept things they don't want in order to accept the problems in the country and for future generations. that's what's missing, the discussion of what happens next with the next generation of americans and, unfortunately,
talk about foreign policy, it's a direct impact on the department of defense and these are exact questions we should be asking. >> heather: and this is not unprecedented. there are two other times that a cabinet secretary needed 60 votes and both of those bush nominees facing harry reid and democrats and environmental agency head. both had to meet 60 vote threshold. now it has happened to hagel. the third time in ten years. so it's not unprecedented. my question to you, why rush it? >> because the department of defense is responsible for our military. we are currently in conflict right now. i think this is something that has to deal with national security. you really need to get serious and get to work here. we can't be talking about things that are not relevant. they are asking for information about benghazi and chuck hagel had nothing to do with benghazi. if you wanted questions about that you need to talk on other people. >> heather: they got one of those questions answered, that is whether or not president obama himself personally called libyan officials on the night of septe
've covered foreign policy in washington for a long time. can you put this into some kind of perspective, historically? how rare is it for this to happen to a president's nominee? >> well, this is very rare. i mean, it's unprecedented. i covered the john tower nomination. he was the former chairman of the committee of the armed services committee. and that was also something that john mccain brought up yesterday. that's part of the grudge match. he wasn't filibustered because the administration just lost that one. but this filibuster with a recess permits the opposition to keep upping the ante. i mean, one of the things that you and joe are pointing out here is that every time chuck hagel turns a corner, they're flowing something else up there. benghazi wasn't even on his watch. they used it to try to get leverage. to try to get more information about what the president did on that night. did he go to bed? was he calling the pentagon? who was in charge? something that they could have asked in another context. they did get a letter from the white house lawyer yesterday which responded at
and patriotism and service. my focus is entirely on his long-standing foreign policy record, and his opposition to sanctions to any form of direct action dealing with those who would cause harm. and so in no way, shape, or form have i impugned his pages is the i focus on his foreign policy record which even the "washington post" describes as the french. cycling the senator from florida suggested that i stated that mr. hagel has not been truthful. to the contrary, my point is exactly the opposite. that the question this committee asked whether he has director received money from foreign sources enables him to answer that truthfully, no, while at the same time not disclosing whether the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has received has come indirectly from foreign sources. his answers could be entirely truthful and yet the example i use of course, that money, that 200,000 could have come from a foreign nation, and he could answer that truthfully, no, i haven't received it but it came from an intermediary. and my point is not that he has lied. it is rather that he has refused to answer reasonab
, she was talking about war, i don't think we will hear a lot about foreign policy tonight. we will hear about the president trying to and pull troops out of afghanistan. and we will probably hear about north korea, since that happened today. that might change things a little. by peter will be a good number of things that he will not mention, which is interesting. guest: i have never observed a pattern of wars beginning in conjunction with state of the union addresses. one thing i will watch for this evening is the congressional black caucus, a collection of black members of congress, met recently with valerie jarrett on the hill. she's one of the president's top advisers, to discuss the state of the union to some extent. the question i have is whether he is going to address black unemployment specifically and things that will help bring that number down. i think that is what the congressional black caucus wants, but i don't know if that is when he's going to do. host: host: kumar worked in florida and washington. jonathan strong has some experience at "roll call." here reported on envir
, manufacturing, immigration. he talked about foreign policy issues as well. here's the new york times with a little history about the state of the union addresses. ronald in kentucky, independent. what are your thoughts on the state of the union? caller: i liked what he set about raising the minimum wage and immigration reform and some of the others things. i am a little frustrated with congress and why they cannot get their act together and work together to get things done. host: what would you like to see them get done? caller: i would like to see them get things done, not taking so long to get the budget under control. instead of all this talk about cutting benefits, cutting things there. i never heard nobody mentioned nothing about so much money the u.s. is sending overseas to these other countries. out others, helping doing my part. but before you start cutting people that have worked all their lives to support the united states, start looking overseas and seeing where you are sending the money. host: budget experts have said the foreign aid makes up less than -- it's not even do
of foreign policy, and if you look at the fact that he has ended in the war in iraq, he has meandering towards ending the war in afghanistan, he's allowing the pentagon, and you've got to remember when you look at the pentagon, you're looking at an institution that has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur. it takes the pentagon a long time to put together a timetable such as for withdraw. all obama has to do, and i know it's not this simple, but i would look at the experience, came in in 1995, gave the speech in 1996, announcing the bleeding wound, he had nazis tell schulz we were getting out and the military had a year to turn it around, and they wouldn't be able to. 88, they announced the timetable, 89 they were gone. we need to do something similar. military's had its chances. we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in 11 years. look at thomas rick's book "the generals" that devotes a lot of attention to this. that's not a war where we can be successful. it's not the kind of military we have. there's no military that's ever been successful in a counter insurgency, and not only do they ha
and foreign policy organizations. at his january 31 nomination hearing, before the armed services committee, senator hagel was enthusiastically introduced and endorsed by two former chairmen of our committee, chairmen who have huge bipartisan support and respect by everybody in this body and everybody outside of this body who knows them, and those two chairmen are sam nunn and john warner. senator hagel's nomination has been endorsed by five former secretaries of defense who served under both democratic and republican presidents, bob gates, bill cohen, bill perry, harold brown and melvin leery. he has been endorsed by three former secretaries of state, madeleine albright, colin powell and george shultz, and by six former national security advisors who served in that position for more than 20 years under six of the last seven presidents. let me just share with our colleagues a few of the words of senator nunn when he introduced senator hagel to our committee. senator nunn said that i believe that our nation is fortunate to have a nominee for secretary of defense with the character, the exper
further reference as well. hosting where the debate is doctor bucci, director of our center for foreign policy studies. he previously served heritage a senior research fellow for defense and homeland security. is well-versed in the special area operations and cybersecurity areas as well as defense support to civil authorities. he served for three decades as an army special forces officer in july 2001 coming assume the duties of military assistance to secretary rumsfeld and worked daily with the secretary for the next five and a half years, and then upon retirement from the army continued at the pentagon is deputy assistant secretary of defense, homeland defense, and america security affairs but please join me in welcoming steve bucci. [applause] >> let me add my welcome to all of you. i think you're going to have a real treat this morning, as john mentioned him on a special forces officer by profession, and so this area is near and dear to my heart. this is kind of what we do. they don't let me do it anymore. i mentioned to max when he came in a little historical artifact, and that when
're going to do that unless there is a political or a foreign policy reason for them not to do it. >> i mean there's been the questions about responding to sanctions. i mean even today people are wondering, is it tied to state of the union. is it sort of a direct, you know, push against the u.s.? >> i don't think so. i mean, in 2009 we heard this exact same thing. it was a condemnation of their april 2009 missile launch. the north koreans six weeks later conducted a second nuclear test in which they said it was because of the condemnation that occurred over their missile tests. you know, the response to that is that's nonsense. nobody conducts nuclear tests because they've been chastised over a missile test. more specifically, i would say if you're looking at a concurrence of time, it's not the state of the union. it's the two weeks prior to the inauguration of a new south korean president. >> brown: to another part of the world. we'll get back to that. let me ask james acton, the north korean official news agency referred to this as a miniaturized and lighter nuclear device with greater exp
. >> were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect, yes or no? >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot >> warner: on sunday, republican senator lindsey graham said he would put a hold on hagel and on john brennas nonati as c.i.a. director, until he gets more answers from the white house about the september attack in benghazi, libya. in a statement today, white house spokesman josh earnest reaffirmed president obama's support for hagel. and said: late today, reid forced a vote on breaking the fillibuster. the current defense secretary leon panetta who'd been due to leave his post today has said he will stay on until his successor is confirmed. and, at a ceremony honoring for and late today the president said it was unfortunate to have politics intrude while he's still presiding over a war in afghanistan. to help us understand the implications, the politics and what's next, we turn to pentagon reporter mark thompson of "time" magazine. and todd z
are republicans trying to subvert the foreign policy of the united states over an old and bitter grudge? let's bring in ari melber and democrat strategist julian ep sto epstein. what is senator mccain's problem? is he trying to defend a mode okur president bush or is he trying to defend a failed war in iraq? >> i think it's more iraq where we know senator mccain has long stood by our presence there and adding troops there, but bottom line if you take this as the mccain filibuster standard, then no one in any democratic administration ever gets a vote because, guess what? a lot of them have good faith and i think well-grounded disagreements with george w. bush. so this cannot be the standard. it's not defensible on its own terms and that's the problem. they are erecting a supermajority hurdle for all of this legislation and all of these nominees. this is an old problem from the way the republicans have been acting and it doesn't stand up because by this standard again you would not let anyone serve in government that you di agreed with. >> but it's based on a grudge. it's based on a bitter gr
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 81 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)